| markm75 2007-04-05, 1:15 pm |
| On Apr 5, 5:23 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih <m...@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. I think that if it supports files > 100GB, then it should support
> them without surprises. Of course, if you say ''commodity'' = ''not
> really for mission critical stuff'', then I can agree.
>
>
> I wouldn't know. Linux ext2/3 has a 2TB file size limit.
>
> But that was actually not my point. My point is that if it is
> supported, then it should be supported well. If it is not supported
> that is better than if you think you can use it, but on actual usage
> things start to go wrong. I believe this whole thread shows that ;-)
>
> So ''substandard'' = ''the features are there but you should not
> really use them to their limits'', a.k.a. ''we did it, but we did not
> really do it right''.
>
> Arno
Results are in.. Used shadow protect.. set to 50GB files at a time on
the backup file side.. average throughput 23 MB/s.. finished in 4hr 25
minutes, the same time as a local backup took (this was across
gigabit).
So I guess its true.. there is something to the polution of the cache/
registry issue? Anyone have a KB article where I could find the tweak
and try this again without splitting the backup files? (Not sure what
I'm searching for exactly).
Thanks
|